An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection • Hacker News Board

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#61

Post by lamnk » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:29 PM UTC

brk wrote: post #31

Niten wrote: post #4

> To be clear, we believe you have every right to push forward such a policy. In our view, it’s your hardware and your channel and you can put forth any policy you like. It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Apple's enforcement of what can and can not run on these devices is not some fundamental property right, but an artificial constru…

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not ru…

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#62

Post by kmfrk » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:33 PM UTC

EnderMB wrote: post #27

This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?

Piracy - it's probably better to make free, ad-supported apps. Fragmentation. What you're able to do as a seller depends on the country you live in. The Android store is terrible (from what I've read and heard). General discoverability - Apple does a fine job of promoting apps. Messed up rules that will ruin your entire business[1]. Google's "Don't be evil" is bull[2].

It's my impression that iOS developers make more money - although cross-platform development can be considered.

I am probably never going to own an Android phone, so I won't be developing apps for myself which makes development too artificial.

This blog post has made me consider looking into Palm/WebOS, though.

[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1670880

[2]: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/cspnb/daring_fireball...

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#63

Post by bartonfink » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:33 PM UTC

quizbiz wrote: post #58

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All contracts are artificial constructs. There are no natural contracts. So the question is simply whether the kind of contract Apple has with its customers is legal or not and if it is whether the law should be changed.

> There are no natural contracts. Do not kill?

More than almost anything else, killing seems fundamental to nature as I understand nature. I would, in fact, say that "kill or be killed" is THE natural contract.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#64

Post by kenjackson » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

yannickmahe wrote: post #30

EnderMB wrote: post #27

This may be a stupid comment to make, but one I feel should be added to the conversation. Why are people so willing to develop for Apple when Android is now the larger platform, and has a far easier barrier to entry?

Revenue on iOS devices is far greater than on Android devices: it seems people paying for Apple products are far more eager to pay for apps.

What about ad revenue? Angry Birds appears to be making more money from Google ads than iOS sales, from what I can tell...

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#65

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

lamnk wrote: post #61

brk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not ru…

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#66

Post by GHFigs » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

lamnk wrote: post #61

brk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not ru…

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

You mean like Zune, Windows Phone, and Xbox?

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#67

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:37 PM UTC

lamnk wrote: post #61

brk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't Apple's hardware; let us not forget the hardware belongs to the people buying the iPhones and iPads out there. Sort of. It's all a matter of licensing. Technically, you might own the hardware, but you are licensing the OS running on it. A better argument would be if you took your iOS device and wrote your own stack for it. In that case, I don't think Apple would have much claim to what you could/could not ru…

I don't think so. Just imagine Microsoft try to apply the same terms to Windows ...

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#68

Post by damoncali » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:40 PM UTC

The reason this doesn't work is because Apple had to pick a number - 30%. For some businesses, that makes perfect sense. for others 1% or maybe 70% might make sense. But rigidly adhering to 30% (no doubt because of the massive complexity of the alternative) is going to cut lots of business out just because it doesn't make sense. Apple needs to rethink this - it's clumsy.

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#69

Post by GHFigs » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:41 PM UTC

lambda wrote: post #28

rimantas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get your argument. > There is no reason for the channel to be Apple's How about the reason that it is Apple's? And why would they not want to have their rules on their channel? I am also not sure about ridiculousness of the rules; and finally "losses value"—it depends. One can argue that this is true for some segment wanting to participate in Apples ecosystem, but it is offset by another, larger, segment whic…

The issue is that Apple is artificially tying their channel to your hardware; they sold the hardware to you, but they sold it, not leased it, so its still your hardware. However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware. If you had the option of buying apps through another channel, this wouldn't be a problem. Most p…

However, they've artificially retained control of the channel via DRM, software that doesn't allow you to install whatever you want on your own hardware.

Why don't you just remove Apple's software and install your own?

Re: An Open Letter to Apple on the Readability App rejection

#70

Post by tel » Mon, Feb 21, 2011, 5:41 PM UTC

P.S. We’d we be glad to deliver Readability for iOS – with in-app purchasing – if you’d carve out 70% from your 30% fee and share it with writers and publishers, just as we do.

This will never happen, but if it did I'd be ecstatic. It could be a great PR move and really help Readability's goals to fund independent content producers online.